Michiel

On the fence about this one myself. I do have the 24-105mm as a standard zoom, as well as 35L and 85L II primes. I'm leaning towards the camp that indoors f/2.8 is often not enough, so I'm inclined toward the 50L. We'll see...

Hi, if you already have the 35mm and the 85mm i don't see any reason for buying the 24-70 other than to be able to walk out the door with just one lens. From a weight-perspective it does't make sense to add another 800 grams to your bag.

I have the same dilemma but now that i read this forum, i tend towards buying the 5DIII again instead of the 24-70 II. Which is not a huge step, moneywise.

Well I have both, IMHO the 24-70II is the best standard zoom I've ever used and could easily replace the 24 & 35 primes>however I also have the 50L, I think you need a fast prime for bokeh and light gathering ability> I was thinking about one of the other fast primes (24 or 35) but just fell in love with the 50L so kept that and got the 24-70II very happy with both LR will correct distortion!

I understand the need to raise funds for the zoom, but at the loss of the 24LII?!? That I think is a mistake. Being that the cost of the new 24-70 is steep, you may want to try it before you buy it.

How do you know? have you ever try 24-70 II? I tried 24mm and currently own 24-70 II....IT'S NOT A MISTAKE.

I use both the 24mm and 24-70 ii. They're different tools for different purposes. The 24mm lets in up to 4x as much light, and allows you to create wide shots with a shallow depth of field that simply cannot be achieved with the 24-70. If you don't use it for low light or shallow dof, say for example if you're mainly shooting landscapes at f8 then there's little reason to keep the 24mm.

However, the 24mm is a great lens which does things you cannot do with a f2.8 zoom. Whether its worth keeping alongside a zoom lens which covers 24mm depends on your style of photography/cinematography.